Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Marriage is a legal arrangement that protects mothers and children. That's the only reason it exists. No one except the left wing idiots in here claimed it was a license to have children.
Really?
Where in your marriage license does it mention protecting mothers and children? Where does it mention mothers and children at all?
Marriage is a partnership allowing for sharing your assets And caring for each other for the rest of your life. It has never required procreation
You continue to misstate the argument because you know your drivel is idiotic. No one ever said "marriage requires procreation." The argument is that marriage exists because of procreation.
Try repeating that 1000 times before you waste everyone's time again.
Where have I ever stated that "marriage requires procreation to be valid?"
Lie, lie, lie!!
Marriage laws are about reproduction. Gays can't reproduce.
Anyone with a brain understands that if it wasn't for the fact of reproduction, marriage wouldn't exist.
Where is it written. The reality of the matter is that you do not have to be married in order to have children. Also, you do not have to have children to be married. Sterile couples can be married. Single peoples can have intercourse and have children without being married. People can adopt children. Gay couples can hire a surrogate mother or a sperm donor.
The old argument that marriage is so that couples can join their DNA together to produce / protect children is lame at best.
A marriage license is not a license to have children, it is a license for a partnership.
It has nothing to do with shooting a "dear"
Marriage is a legal arrangement that protects mothers and children. That's the only reason it exists. No one except the left wing idiots in here claimed it was a license to have children.
Really?
Where in your marriage license does it mention protecting mothers and children? Where does it mention mothers and children at all?
Marriage is a partnership allowing for sharing your assets And caring for each other for the rest of your life. It has never required procreation
Like I said, the guy can't be this stupid. He's laughing behind his screen that we're taking these posts seriously.
You get the gist of what I'm saying, the OP is an ad-hominem that basically says if you don't accept homosexual behavior and whatever the hell they like and want you're bigoted and intolerant but if the writer of the OP cannot accept the religious beliefs of others what does that make him?.................LMAO!
Then your issue is with the OP. You may be as hateful and as bigoted as you wish, and provide no justification accordingly. You may not, however, attempt to codify that hate and bigotry into secular law, nor use it as justification to deny others their civil rights.
And what are you going to do about it? Why are you so concerned whether or not society is accepting of homosexuality?I forgot, in today's PC world, religious people are to condemn all sinful behavior listed in the Bible except for homosexuality because the media, Hollywood, and a bunch of lying psychiatrists are more accepting of homosexuality and say its ok and all of the above are more objective than our religion.
Unless, of course, youre concerned that such acceptance and tolerance will undermine your efforts to deny homosexuals equal protection of, and equal access to, the law.
Who?
A Google search will provide an extensive list.
Otherwise, even if homosexuals provided no significant contribution to art or science, that wouldnt justify denying them their rights.
Hmm, basically the media shapes religious belief, and has you females mascared up, scarfless, eating meat on fridays, shaving yourself all over, wearing sexy clothes, etc. so seems you don't mind taking it in the ass, your just worried about two guys doing the same.
And lying psychiatrists?? LMAO! What do you know about that? Obviously there has been years of scientific sudy on the subject, and because you don't like the conclusions, you try to use your god and your lack of sense to say its all a lie??
There actually has been no "scientific" study of the matter. There has only been quackery.
The quackery has been on the "gay is a choice" side. There are no peer reviewed studies that come to the conclusion that sexual orientation is chosen.
Tim Pawlenty says scientists are in dispute over whether being gay is a choice
Politifact Rated:
Most agree that sexual orientation is fixed: it's behavior that's choice
61 pages and Costanza's original proposition still stands - there's no justification for the laws disallowing homosexual marriage.
All you and Costanza have demonstrated is the fact that you're immune to facts and logic.
I'm not immue. You are. (see how kindergartener that sounds?)
There's not been one valid justification given in 61 pages. That's a fact for you.
Well, New York has done the right thing. Which brings to mind a question.
Can any person here who is "opposed to gay marriage" come forward and justify their position on the basis of anything other than intolerance and bigotry? Seriously.
Please don't start with "the Bible does not condone same sex marriage." Perhaps it doesn't. So WHAT? Let's say the Bible contained a passage which said: "Marriage is only between a man and a woman. If thou shalt marry one of the same sex as yourself, thou shalt burn in the fiery pits of HELL!" So what? Isn't invoking the Bible just another way of shoving religion down the throats of other people? Yup. In other words, intolerance and bigotry.
No, my friends - we all know what is really involved here, don't we? I am wondering if there is anyone here who has the stones to come right out and tell it like it is: "I am opposed to same sex marriage because I hate gays everything they stand for. No other reason."
Intolerance and bigotry. There really does not seem to be any other reason.
Marriage laws have been shaped in part in an attempt to keep families stable, which keeps the country stable. I won't argue differently. The problem comes when you look at the right/ability/choice to marry. Everyone should get to marry the human of their choice. Period.
If religion informs your opinion, that's fine. Lots of different influences shape people's opinions. But that doesnt make a religious opinion right. At the end of the day, it's whichever side can get the most votes. Time is on the side of the homosexuals. Eventually people will become liberal enough to pass these laws that should, in my opinion, already be passed - allowing them to marry.
Really? YOu've proved that marriage required procreation to be valid? Where did you do that?
Where have I ever stated that "marriage requires procreation to be valid?"
Lie, lie, lie!!
Marriage laws are about reproduction. Gays can't reproduce.
Anyone with a brain understands that if it wasn't for the fact of reproduction, marriage wouldn't exist.
Do all straight people get married for the exact same reasons? No, they don't. It will be the same for gays and lesbians. They will get married for all the same, different reasons st8s do. So, when you boil the "issue" down, it is about equality, plain and simple.
Whatever the motives of the people who do it, the laws were created because of the fact of reproduction.
Guess again big fella...
History of Marriage in Western Civilization
Gays can't reproduce. we therefore have no justification for extending the marriage franchise to them. It would make as much sense to let our pets marry.
I reproduced plenty...more than most I'd say...
You get the gist of what I'm saying, the OP is an ad-hominem that basically says if you don't accept homosexual behavior and whatever the hell they like and want you're bigoted and intolerant but if the writer of the OP cannot accept the religious beliefs of others what does that make him?.................LMAO!
Then your issue is with the OP. You may be as hateful and as bigoted as you wish, and provide no justification accordingly. You may not, however, attempt to codify that hate and bigotry into secular law, nor use it as justification to deny others their civil rights.
And what are you going to do about it? Why are you so concerned whether or not society is accepting of homosexuality?
Unless, of course, youre concerned that such acceptance and tolerance will undermine your efforts to deny homosexuals equal protection of, and equal access to, the law.
Who?
A Google search will provide an extensive list.
Otherwise, even if homosexuals provided no significant contribution to art or science, that wouldnt justify denying them their rights.
Homosexuals have the same rights as everyone else. They can marry someone of the opposite sex that is willing to marry them as long as neither has legal comittments.
Your argument is basically: we want it and it hurts no one else (not really, but that is what you say). Now, if that is the standard for re-defining words and changing laws, can't two consenting adults, one that is going to commit suicide and one that wants to eat the person after they are dead say they are having dinner together? It shouldn't be a problem because they are "consenting" adults and it will not hurt anyone else. Let's not be judgemental about this, they should be able to do .... whatever and everyone just ACCEPT it, because they waaaaaant it.
It's just hard to find a reason why gays should not be allowed to marry, and that is because logical minds reached conclusions that favor their unity in marriage. They actually help heterosexual marriages out by adopting and raising the children for the hetro-flawed relationships. Their numbers are so insignificant in our population as to make this debate of justification to marriage seem completely foolish.
Government has no business in marriages, and laws should be restructured on an individual basis, not based on couples.
Or for my widowed grandmother to remarry.Whatever the motives of the people who do it, the laws were created because of the fact of reproduction.
Gays can't reproduce. we therefore have no justification for extending the marriage franchise to them. It would make as much sense to let our pets marry.
If you hate gay people that's one thing. But to deny them the right to access contract law based on your silly fears and hate is an absolute wrong.
The fact that we haven't riddled the marriage laws with all sorts of complications to handle every special case proves nothing.
Homosexuals have the same rights as everyone else. They can marry someone of the opposite sex that is willing to marry them as long as neither has legal comittments.
Your argument is basically: we want it and it hurts no one else (not really, but that is what you say). Now, if that is the standard for re-defining words and changing laws, can't two consenting adults, one that is going to commit suicide and one that wants to eat the person after they are dead say they are having dinner together? It shouldn't be a problem because they are "consenting" adults and it will not hurt anyone else. Let's not be judgemental about this, they should be able to do .... whatever and everyone just ACCEPT it, because they waaaaaant it.
Plaintiffs challenge Proposition 8 under the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment. Each challenge is independently meritorious, as Proposition 8 both unconstitutionally burdens the exercise of the fundamental right to marry and creates an irrational classification on the basis of sexual orientation.
Perry et al v. Schwarzenegger et al
How about one fact that proves two people of the same sex are "the same" as two people of the opposite sex?
These matters, involving the most intimate and personal choices a person may make in a lifetime, choices central to personal dignity and autonomy, are central to the liberty protected by the Fourteenth Amendment. At the heart of liberty is the right to define ones own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life. Beliefs about these matters could not define the attributes of personhood were they formed under compulsion of the State. Ibid.
Persons in a homosexual relationship may seek autonomy for these purposes, just as heterosexual persons do.
Lawrence v Texas (2003)
Please tell me where it says people should be able to marry the person "of their choice".
These statutes also deprive the Lovings of liberty without due process of law in violation of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men.
Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival. Skinner v. Oklahoma, 316 U.S. 535, 541 (1942). See also Maynard v. Hill, 125 U.S. 190 (1888). To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discriminations. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual, and cannot be infringed by the State.
Loving v Virginia (1967)
To put it bluntly, a marriage license is a license to fuck
The bible prohibits sex outside of marriage. Otherwise, you would wait till the woman was pregnant before you got a license to procreate.
It is also the reason the religious right opposes gay marriage. They do not approve of the way they have sex, so they think banning gay marriage somehow stops gay sex.
